On Fake Protest — Is The Extinction Rebellion … A Front For The Fossil Industries?
We’ve all seen the headlines, the antics, and the absurd protests that purport to raise awareness of the climate crisis by a group known as the Extinction Rebellion. They glue themselves to art. They disrupt billiards and tennis tournaments.
I had sort of just thought of them as a little weird and extreme for most of the time I’d known about them. It never really occurred to me that they might simply be a fake organization, though, until we received a press release from them about how they disrupted the New York International Auto Show to protest not Hummers or other gas guzzlers, but … wait for it … electric vehicles. It was specifically about EVs, not a general protest of all cars and personal private vehicle ownership.
The press release suggested that they were doing this because “President Biden is promoting and stimulating investment in electric cars, presenting them as a solution to climate catastrophe. This ignores the fact that electric vehicles bring a host of new problems, and do not address the vast majority of problems arising from the use of fossil-fuel-powered cars. Residents of car-dependent cities and suburbs are forced to drive small distances in extremely overweight and oversized vehicles.”
Confused, I wrote back. The chain of logic is bizarre, and the leap from production of EVs to people being “forced” to drive extremely overweight and oversized vehicles was just too big. And the myths about EVs not being much greener than gasoline-powered cars have been debunked thoroughly countless times.
From here on, it gets funny, weird, and, well, more bizarre. Please let me know in the comments whether you think I’m onto something here, or am just a pompous ass know-it-all. Both are possible, as is anything in between. LOL
Here’s the dialogue. My email signature made it clear we could quote them and publish them, but I’m withholding the young man’s name for his sake:
A spokesperson replied, “Modern electric cars are much heavier, bulkier, and larger than they need to be. Personal vehicles, to the extent we need them at all, need to be much smaller and lighter if we’re serious about addressing our scary looking future.”
Me: “OK, I see. You’re advocating for alternatives to cars, like mass transit, and walkable cities, which I think is 100% awesome. But why protest electric cars? Why not protest gas cars? Or yachts or private jets, for that matter? LOL… EVs are 1,000x less bad than gas cars, and I am more than happy to share all the science and tech to document that, if you’re interested?”
Him: “They may be 1000x less bad, but that’s not enough. There’s plenty of people protesting the things you mention. But people are talking about electric cars as if they’re some great step in the right direction. Are they really? Or is it just another way to sell literal tons and tons of non-recyclable carbon intensive steel and lithium?”
Me: “I appreciate that. I have a lot of thoughts on the issue. The main crux is that EVs can help people not own a car, which I think is what you’re hoping to accomplish!
- Not everyone lives (or wants to live) in a city and has access to public transit. EVs can be autonomous and networked so that people living in the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas can afford to not own a car, but still have reliable transportation. A fleet of driverless EVs that can park themselves at a central location and charge on clean energy while others in the fleet are out moving people around can make car ownership obsolete for many otherwise car-dependent people.
- EVs get 4-5 more miles per unit of energy used than gas cars, and can be driven entirely on sunshine or wind power.
- They can be used to store solar and wind energy when there are excess of either, and send it back to the grid later to power a home. It’s happening everywhere and it’s created local self-reliance, and helping transition us to clean energy. Just for one quick example, local distributed batteries like this helped Hawaii get rid of its last coal plant last year. Without all those batteries on homes and in cars, the coal plant would have stayed open and would be burning coal every day. Coal that was previously being mined in Wyoming or China and shipped thousands of miles to be burned once. Talk about unsustainable!
- There are no toxic fluids to leak in an EV – unlike gas cars that leak all sorts of petrochemical stuff all over streets, down storm drains, into water supplies…
- Would you rather mine for metals once for a battery that will last 150,000 miles, or mine for oil and burn it every 22 miles in a gas car?
The end-of-life stuff is a challenge, for sure, but it’s a technical problem, not a human behavior problem, and it’s already being solved by dozens of multi-million dollar companies. Redwood Materials is a good example. Their entire business is in the end-of-life re-use of the rare earth metals and other critical components in battery systems. They’re not alone – there are many in that space, and it’s really just a technology problem to solve – and as we know, government problems take a long time, human behavior problems take a long time, but technology changes fast. The thing is, EVs are a significant step toward a better future. Are they perfect? No, but if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we go nowhere. Just my 2 cents from a 30-year history of activism. Thoughts?”
Him: “Yes. Personal vehicles make sense in some cases, but they have to be smaller. Current personal vehicles are pointlessly large and heavy. This reduces range and makes them much harder to manufacture.
- If we switch all vehicles to electric the pressure on the grid will be too large. Wind turbines are already becoming extremely unsustainable to construct as they have to be built on large steel structures. This steel is so damaging to the environment to produce that the wind turbine can’t make up for it in its lifetime. Again, smaller and lighter vehicles consume less electricity.
- If you’re talking about coal, modern electric cars contain about 990kg of steel. Producing this steel requires a lot of coal, and the copper used in EVs means that this steel can’t be recycled.
- Large vehicles have large suspensions and braking systems which all have dangerous fluids. This can be resolved by making personal vehicles smaller and lighter.
- The battery could last 600,000 miles if we made the cars smaller, lighter, and slower.
This isn’t about perfection vs good, this is about perpetuating a steel and mining industry that must be stopped. There is an easy solution. Fewer cars, and ones that are significantly smaller, lighter, and slower!”
Me: “I won’t argue the environmental impacts of an EV. There’s two main things that I’d love for you to think about, if you’ll bear with a guy who’s been in this fight for 30+ years, spent 10 adult years car-free, has eaten a plant-based diet for 30 years, and who has made a career fighting for climate justice. I’m all in on this stuff.
1. You’re 100% right. If we all drove smaller cars, biked, or took public transit, a lot of our problems would be solved. However, if you look around anywhere except in urban dense cores, you’ll see that people would not be likely to adopt these practices in those environments. People have kids, need to carry strollers, go to the beach, etc., and want storage space. Just is what it is – fighting human nature is just never going to hit a high level of adoption.
2. EVs are a thousand times better for the environment than gas cars — if someone buys a new gas car right now, even if gas prices don’t rise, you’re committing the owner of that car to buy $60,000-$120,000 worth of gasoline plus thousands of dollars of lubricants and other fluids gas cars need, all of which are made by drilling for oil, refining that oil and shipping it thousands of miles. Buy an EV, and you do not have to support Russia’s war chest, or Exxon/big oil for 20-30 years. Zero, zilch, nada.
That second point is why the fossil fuel lobbyists and PR firms are hard at work to make sure people are confused about whether EVs should be part of the answer. They stand to lose a lot of money. Simple as that.”
Him: “You’re right at a micro scale. Car by car, yes the EVs are probably producing fewer emissions. But scale matters. The bigger picture is a lot less rosy. If we continue car production at current scale, and continue growing car production at current rates, things are going to get a lot worse, no matter the way the cars are propelled.
Steel is the most obvious issue, although all materials used in EVs have similar problems. Steel production accounts for ~10% of global emissions and ~10% of global resource extraction. At current rates, this is going to increase FIFTY FOLD due to the auto industry alone. EVs place a lot of copper near this steel, meaning that it can’t be recycled. This is horrifying. We need to be using less of these materials that are finite but are treated as infinite. If we replace every gas car with an EV we are absolutely blowing past 2.5C.”
Me: “Like I said, I’d like to live in a world where people will simply see the big picture and switch to a car free life and walk and bike everywhere. I really, really would. I was a committed bike commuter for 20 years (even won an award for it from a place I worked), have been plant based for 30 years, and am 100% committed to a sustainable future. But I know I’m a minority – the grand, grand majority of people have something else as their top priority in life.
Are you familiar with a Life-Cycle Analysis? It’s a scientifically rigorous tool scientists use to calculate the environmental impact of a product. Here’s one the International Energy Agency did on EVs vs gas cars:
You can see that lifetime emissions of an EV are half that of a gas car, COUNTING EVERYTHING YOU’RE CONCERNED ABOUT — the mining, steel, metals, battery recycling, etc.
And that doesn’t even count the fact that distributed energy (like EV batteries) helps get rid of things like coal plants.
So…car by car it’s better, so in a world in which many, many people are not going to give up their cars, what do you think is the net result of attacking EVs in particular?
Of all the battles you could pick to fight, I’m so curious, why attack something that’s a tremendously better product than the traditional products they’re trying to replace?”
Him: “I am familiar with a life-cycle analysis! Which is why I know they are flawed, like this one which fails to note the infrastructure needed to maintain the current growth rate of cars, and the growth rate of renewables. We are already getting to the point of offshore wind farms not quite having a rosy life-cycle analysis of their own anymore — structures that have to go deep into the ocean are extremely costly (to the environment) to build (steel again: both for the structures they sit on in the ocean and the turbines themselves), and these turbines are not generating enough green power to counteract this. This means that some wind turbines are actually consuming more carbon than they save! These kinds of problems are just the tip of the iceberg of what we will face if we fully switch to electric.”
Me: “I appreciate your passion – I really do. But if you even try to curb peoples’ freedom in any way — like, saying they need to change even a measly little lightbulb, there’s a HUGE UPROAR. Just google “lightbulb freedom” if you’re curious. Here is the legislation introduced by a Republican to stop Congress from taking away our choice of lightbulbs. Here’s a right wing think tank just still arguing against LEDs to this day. You can’t even make this stuff up. The Fox News of the world are only so happy to take any piece of fake news or pseudoscience that feeds peoples’ fear, uncertainty or doubt about that lightbulb (or wind energy or solar or EVs or e-bikes or fill-in-the-blank clean energy solution), and make those people rebel against it like their life depends on it.
So what you’re suggesting here is what, exactly? That we stop using electricity? That we stop moving around? That we stop…what?
There’s a clear way to lose every election, and that is by telling Americans they *need* to do something that they might not want to do. Google “Jimmy Carter sweater” for the best example. He tried to urge Americans to just wear a sweater inside the house in the winter to save energy. And it’s widely credited with being the reason he lost in a landslide, when Ronald Reagan came in and said, “We’re Americans — we don’t have to do shit — burn all the oil and natural gas you want.” (I’m paraphrasing…) Before your time, I’m sure, but I was there, remember it, and understand its implications for modern transitions to a clean, sustainable future.
This is an election year — there’s a lot on the line. We have a climate denialist vs someone trying to create green jobs/industries that are much better than the standard quo to help us transition. As you said, Joe Biden has been pushing EVs to help us transition to a cleaner future. There are moneyed and powerful interests trying to get people to be confused as to whether wind energy is good, or EVs. Politics is a bloodsport, my friend. Truth is less important than winning.
Also, can I ask you why you think Life-Cycle Analyses are flawed?”
Him: “LCA fail in a nutshell because a lot of climate collapse and catastrophe can’t be quantified. Although I’ve seen many that ignore a lot of side effects that should not be ignored.”
Me: “That’s not really what LCA does. LCA is just a clear scientific process (with lots of international science organizations that collaborated in the creation of the ISO rules that govern how it’s done, like IEEE) that measures the tangible metrics (pounds of CO2e, for instance) over the lifecycle of the product. It can incorporate Cradle to Cradle impacts (full lifecycle), as well as Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.”
Him: “Yeah I think LCA is flawed in that it doesn’t take into account a lot of the surrounding/reliant infrastructure. For example, mining means more machines that mine, and those are not included in the analysis.”
Me: “Would it change your mind to know that that is in fact included in LCA?
Him: “It would, but wouldn’t an honest scope 3 LCA decry anything but extremely localized production at the smallest reasonable scale?”
Me: “No. That’s the thing — it’s so easy to criticize and dismiss these things. But very, very smart people have been at work on these things for decades — including my cousin, who works for one of these scientific organizations that contributed to a globally accepted standard that combined stakeholders from every corner. They first proposed ideas around this when I was a child…they then did studies, formed committees…the result is comprehensive and is universally accepted, because each stakeholder was involved in the decision process.
https://www.iso.org/standard/
Every company and organization that conducts LCAs use these standards. Sure there are LCA phonies out there, just like anything there will be ripoffs (“Ray Ban” sunglasses for sale on the streets of Dubai anyone? LOL), but anyone who has even the slightest level of accountability and oversight (including all publicly traded companies) uses these ISO standards.
I’m curious, where do XR staff/protesters get their training and information about what to protest against, or formulate stances on things, like, well, LCAs, EVs, and wind power? There are so much better targets of a climate activist’s ire than these things, and, well, it’s just hard to understand, to be honest. I’ve been hard at work trying to save the planet for 30 years, and seeing climate protesters protesting not private jets, yachts, or other forms of conspicuous consumption, but targeting vehicles that get 4-5x more miles per unit of energy and can run entirely on rooftop solar, is… just weird.
And, there is SO MUCH misinformation out there — much of it purposefully designed and promoted by fossil industries to create fear uncertainty and doubt about existing climate solutions, that unfortunately it works its way into mainstream consciousness, and that has real world effects — like slowing the adoption of things that are take away the profits of the polluting industries. It’s just a calculated marketing spend — all they’re trying to do is slow that adoption so that they can stretch their profits, but they’re putting the entire world at risk of extinction.”
Him: “Thanks for the detailed info. You’re right! These standards are great and well-researched and anyone properly implementing them will make wise decisions. However, it’s all too little too late. It’s scary to internalize just how far down the cliff we already are — even if every manufacturer of anything implements everything you describe, tomorrow, we’re still in deep trouble! We no longer have the time to think about manufacturing processes or energy sources — it’s too late.
I understand your desire to just shift things as much as possible in a correct direction and I’m grateful that there are groups out there doing that. But we can’t lull ourselves into complacency. A world with 100% electric cars has just as many food shortages and water wars coming its way as the world we’re in now does.”
Me: “For sure – it is scary. The best response to something scary is to do something positive — things we know that will help. Have you read “Ministry For The Future?” Best book on the coming transition that I’ve ever seen — could not recommend more highly.
https://cleantechnica.com/
Also Project Drawdown — full of quantifiable science, and many of those things are being worked on by some of the brightest minds already.
I guess my question to you is, what’s the alternative? You mentioned small inclusive community governance — that’s great — I can connect you with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, exactly on this topic. One of their main guys writes for us from time to time.
https://cleantechnica.com/
ILSR recognizes local governance as a key priority, but also understands that local governance that pushes for solar powered microgrids powering EVs, electric bikes, electric stoves, and heat pump water heaters is a necessary part of the equation. That way, entire communities break their ties to the our fossil fuel addiction.
Yes, we’re off the cliff and falling, but I do believe we’ll find ways to build parachutes to slow us down, and then eventually lift ourselves back up. Will we lose a lot of species and ecosystems? Yep, already happening. But will we lose them all, is the question — and battling against those who are building those parachutes is certainly not going to help us do anything but make a bigger splat at the bottom.”
Him: “I have read Ministry For The Future! I thought it was fine. My big takeaway from it was that action didn’t happen until that one group started with their drones… Not sure the extent to which I agree with that being the path forward but it was fun to see how that might play out. Quantifiable science is important and needed but the context with which it’s done and planned matters. And if we aren’t honest with ourselves about the crisis we’re in then that science will not be helpful! EVs, electric bikes, electric stoves, and heat pump water heaters are all irrelevant when the power plant operators don’t have enough to eat.”
Me: “”plant operators don’t have enough to eat”? What do you mean? I don’t understand this metaphor.
And yes, resilience is huge. This is why EVs have V2X technology — they can not only run completely independently of the internet (I’m not sure where you would have found that idea?), but they are HUGE for resiliency. Consider a tiny example — a power outage, and you simply plug your house into your car, and use the battery power that’s in it to keep vital equipment working. As I mentioned earlier, this V2X technology played a part in Hawaii getting rid of its last coal plant — that’s a good thing, right? I mean, can we at least agree that closing a coal plant in favor of clean energy is a good thing?
The way it did that is through distributed batteries, including EVs that can provide power to the grid, during peak demand time, when otherwise the utility was firing up a coal plant and burning coal that was being shipped four or five thousand miles from Wyoming or China to Hawaii on giant freighters, costing residents almost 50 cents per kilowatt hour — that’s how inefficient the process was — and leaving a giant coal tar pit in a poor community on the west side of the island of Oahu.
All of that is now gone – thanks to…distributed energy, including EV batteries.
I mean…that’s all good stuff, right? That, multiplied by grids around the world, and, you know, we make progress — we slow our fall, and start to reverse it. Right?
I dunno, it just kind of feels like you’ve thrown in the towel since instead of protesting military budgets or private jets, you’re protesting snooker tournaments, EVs, wind power, art… and if you have given up, why bother doing anything, especially including fighting those who are still trying to save some species and ecosystems and rebuild our planetary ecology?”
Him: “It’s not a metaphor! Unless we take immediate and drastic action (far beyond electric cars) food shortages are going to be a reality. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/
This is the point we’re trying to drive home. We’re not throwing in the towel, in fact quite the opposite. There are so many groups saying the right things (yourself included). But we have realized that that position is actually no longer enough.”
Me: “Ok, two things. One, please answer my question. Is closing a coal plant a good thing, according to XR?
Second, what does XR believe the answer is? I’m still not hearing anything other than having neighbors ask neighbors wear sweaters lol”
Him: “XR supports neighbors working together to figure out how to close coal plants and successfully dealing with the consequences of doing that. With our current consumption patterns we are making silly decisions and for every coal plant we close we make other unsustainable decisions which in some cases negate the coal plant closing.
I hope this answers both your questions: yes it’s good when coal plants close, but it is not good if we consuming more than unnecessary as part of it. To avoid these poor decisions, we advocate for a citizen’s assembly, and one which has real power to make these kinds of difficult decisions.
We have finite resources on this planet (something we currently do NOT collectively acknowledge). A citizen’s assembly will grapple with what this means for us and can determine how to fairly divide these limited resources on a planet which is become less livable every day. The hundreds of thousands of climate refugees are only going to grow in number and our current system has proven entirely incapable of doing anything right. More EVs does nothing to address this, instead they mask our inaction as action.”
Me: “Did you see this??
Amazing! Carbon-free living. Thank God for California, EVs, and their batteries! Now exporting to other states to reduce their emissions, too. Happy earth week friend. I hope you see the light soon and come out of that dark cave of despair.”
Him: “This is wonderful news and absolutely a step in the right direction.
But if we were to scale this up internationally, we’d have environmental devastation in all the places we extract the resources that goes into those renewable power grids, those EVs, those batteries. I’m optimistic we’ll figure out how to solve all these huge problems I really am! But lying to ourselves is different from optimism. American food consumption alone… No amount of batteries or renewable electricity can square the circle of “plants don’t grow here anymore.” But I’m optimistic we’ll find a solution. We just have to acknowledge the problem first!”
Me: “You don’t feel like we acknowledged the problem 60 years ago during the first Earth Day? And so many people have been beating the drum that many are now simply tuned out because they feel like the problem is too big, too complex? I do — and stories like this show that there’s a better (if imperfect) way. I’m done with gloom and doom — I know there’s a huge problem. I’m laser-focused on solving it — not making the perfect the enemy of the good, but solving it, death by a thousand cuts kinda way. People need to know that there’s a way forward to join the movement, and we need more people in the movement.
I’ll ask you this — the only solution I hear you putting forward is these local governance groups. What happens when one is on one side of a common (a river, a lake, an ocean, a forest), and the other is on the other side, and they both want to harvest more from there? It’s tragedy of the commons, and it’s one of the main reasons we have layers of government (local, state, fed). Out west, if we didn’t, every state would take all the water out of their rivers and let none flow down to the other states. One gets rich, the others grow poor. So…that’s the best solution XR has? One that falls apart with even the simplest challenge of a limited resource shared on multiple sides (which, is basically all resources…). Or am I missing something?
If you fight wind energy, LCAs, EVs, etc., you fight climate allies who are building better (if imperfect) systems, and actually solving the problem. And on top of that, you alienate everyone who plays snooker and was watching at home as you jumped on the snooker table. And anyone who likes art who is appalled that you’re glueing yourselves to things. And everyone working on very good (if imperfect) solutions that you’re fighting against.
It’s really as simple as that. Pick your battles! Infighting on our side only helps the fossil fuel industry — it divides us and conquers us, which is exactly what they need.
I asked where you get your information and where XR gets its training — you never answered — you weren’t aware that LCAs include the things you thought they were flawed as a result of. You weren’t aware that EV batteries can help permanently shut down the most polluting coal plants (and all the toxic shit that gets pulled out of the ground when they mine for coal, which they have to do again and again and again, as opposed to batteries that you mine once and use for 300K miles). You weren’t aware that California is now exporting clean energy to other states. You weren’t aware of companies doing innovation in battery recycling that will make this issue moot within a decade, making closed loop systems so no more materials need to be pulled out of the ground. You talked about food shortages. Are you aware of companies like Imperfect Produce that are finding innovative ways to reduce food waste, or vertical farming companies that are producing more food per acre than ever before in history? These things might be bridges, and as population falls, which it is doing, we can foresee that we could re-wild 50% of the earth, while producing more with less, and leaving lots and lots of resources for all, including nature. If we let the earth and its ecosystems heal, it will, but we have to stop drilling for oil, gas, and coal and burning it every day in order to even have a chance at that.
Would XR be interested in a training course on actual solutions? We would be happy to teach!”
Him: “Everything you’re saying I’ve heard before. And I think it’s important to raise awareness about it and to have a positive outlook on the future with those future technologies in mind. But these technologies are unproven and crucially not ready yet. Solutions exist today that require no resource-intensive R&D. We need to be leading with those.
Finally, you asked about where we get our training. You might be interested in https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Me: “This Peter Carter?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/
What expertise does he have? His LinkedIn reads like a fake bio, no? Just one thing on there, no other experience or education? If I saw that in a dating app, I’d be like, “this is a Russian troll” LOL. So this, YouTube University and a self-proscribed expert in the IPCC, rather than an actual scientist or a policy expert, or….anyone, really with credibility… THIS is how XR is getting their ideas??? No wonder you don’t like wind, EVs, LCAs or shutting down coal plants!!
I read through the FAQs in your citizens assembly — so randomly drawn people — I do like the idea. I’m curious, though, what happens if we randomly draw a majority who have no education, and don’t understand science or math or health care or… ? Or a majority who have mental health challenges? Then what?
There’s still the issue of “Tragedy of the Commons.” A small group taking care of a small geography is a great idea, but the problem is that the earth provides resources all over that are shared by these small geographies and the people in them. A clear example I gave you about rivers in the western US, for example, has been vexxing for a century. Everyone wants for them, to the exclusion of the “other.” These citizen assemblies will be RIPE for that sort of fighting!!
Also, to say that these people will be free of corruption is a lot. As soon as they’re chosen, they will be approached by lobbyists with suitcases full of cash, don’t you think? LOL
Last, I guess, California is ACTUALLY solving things — putting out 150% clean energy, helping Nevada free itself of fossil fuels, and Oregon. As each place does this, the grip of fossil lobbyists will continue to wane. If everyone has cheap, clean energy, then what’s there to fight about? Same with food systems. These are exactly what the Institute for Local Self-Reliance advocates. I really think you ought to connect — they’ve been working in this space of local self-reliance since I would guess before XR was even an idea. Might be good to lean in and connect and find out what’s worked instead of reinventing a wheel that we don’t even know will turn?”
Him: “I’m not sure who Peter Carter is, I was talking about Roger Hallam. I just thought that video would be one that represents Roger’s beliefs well. But he’s not the only person I’d go to on this.
If you’re curious about citizens assemblies, you might be interested in https://www.
I’d be happy to chat to some of the self reliance folks, especially if any are NYC-based. But honestly it’s not XRs role to advocate for something like that. Assemblies are the type of body that would be better suited to decide if that’s a good fit for an area.
Finally, yes, California is solving things, but is their solution really one that works globally? Is it truly sustainable? Or does it rely on extraction and pollution in other parts of the world. For every piece of massive, unnecessary (even if eco-friendly) infrastructure California purchases and constructs, somewhere on the other side of the earth resources are extracted and the local environment made less inhabitable. All of California’s advances also do nothing to curb consumption, which is the leading driver of extraction, and the leading driver of un-recyclable waste.”
Me: “Roger’s bio is similarly empty – check his LinkedIn. Roger is not a scientist.
When people don’t understand things, they can get scared. I imagine Roger got scared. He lived in his car (his words) for four years, which isolation, I imagine, can cause a lot of mental degradation. So I imagine, like the Unabomber, he became so enthralled in his own belief system that there was no room for anything else.
So XR gets no training in science, and follows the lead of someone who is not a scientist, who then interviews people who have absolutely no credibility in the space (that dude Carter), and rails against…everything… in the vague hope that these citizens’ assemblies will come together, reshape the entire world in a very short period of time, and solve a gigantic problem that others are already well on their way to fixing? And on top of it, XR fights those same people who are actively solving the problem by protesting EVs, wind power, LCAs, batteries, and other things they don’t understand – hoping that these citizen assemblies will be smarter — and understand science — and somehow make better decisions that include a whole lot of personal austerity, something human brains simply aren’t wired for. That’s the hope? Did I sum that up well enough? LOL
California is leading — and yes, it’s exportable. Read the piece I sent.
Honestly, you can’t hope for OVERNIGHT change. It’s just not how society is wired. But if you join us, and see that we’re making INCREDIBLE progress (how does California’s story not fill you with joy? Yes, they imported some solar panels, and those panels are now going to produce emission-free energy for 50 years, meaning NO MORE CONSUMPTION, as opposed to drilling for oil or mining for coal, burning it, then drilling for more, burning it…). How about the island of Kauai showing that locally made, renewable energy is the cheapest, and passing those savings on to its customers in a utility that’s owned by the people it serves? Or the San Francisco Public Utility Commission taking the grid back from PG&E to further reduce costs associated with PGE’s natural gas liabilities and pass those savings on to its residents. How about the Climate Conservation Corps in the US? Creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in climate work…already in 8 states and more than half the population. How about Electrify America training thousands of volunteers to help homeowners reduce their consumption? I could send you example after example if I thought it would change your mind. Good shit is happening everywhere. XR could be a part of that — we would be happy to help.
These are actual solutions. They work. They’re proven. They’re repeatable. Precedent is being set and is now being followed around the world. Proof in the pudding. And so on.
You asked for my thoughts. Here they are. After this convo, I fully believe XR is doing a great favor to the fossil industries — there’s few, if any, more powerful allies and better friends that big oil has than untrained and unscientific climate protesters who anger the public and turn them off to doing anything about climate. Big oil wants to divide us and conquer us, so that big oil’s messages can keep people not wanting to get to a better place. And XR is helping make that easy for big oil.
If XR are actually wishing for the end of the world, I mean, ok, but… can you just say so? It’s ok — all opinions are valid. Would just want to rename you the Extinction Accelerator, though, if we are trying to be honest. If that’s not your aim, maybe start to look at science, not a couple of self-nominated gurus on Youtube, and recognize what’s happening.”
Him: “Either I’m doing a poor job of explaining the XR position, or you’re intentionally taking what I’m saying in bad faith. XR is not seeking to replace any other climate groups, merely supplement them. A broad spectrum of positions is necessary to achieve real change. No one position alone is sufficient. However, when some groups, such as the EV lobby, make misleading claims about their ability to single-handedly lead our way out of the climate crisis we have a duty to make it clear that that’s not the case.
If you’d like to see the XR position expressed from a scientific angle may I suggest https://scientistrebellion.
It can be true that modern eco-friendly lifestyles are still incredibly dangerous to the health and future of the planet.
Someone can live in an entirely renewables-powered 100% electric house in California built out of sustainable materials, drive an electric car, and only eat vegan food from a local supermarket, and still be causing harm. This is not their fault, and we do not blame individuals. This is a systemic problem, but it’s one that we all need to be aware of when considering what actionable solutions we want to take going forward.”
Me: “I’m merely trying to figure out where XR people get their training and education. It’s clear that you’re opposed to a lot of things, but hesitate to support good things for some reason, and that’s what I’m trying to understand. Some blog article from 2017, some dude with a YT channel, interviewing other dudes with no scientific training… really? LOL.
We don’t have to agree on everything, but I hope you can see very clearly now that XR is only helping big oil.
The example you give of the “perfect” California resident doing everything possible but still not being good enough basically says that what you’re saying is that we need to go back to living in caves. And of course, that’s a great way to alienate everyone who doesn’t want to do that, and scare them away from doing “good.”
It paralyzes positivity.
There have always been extremists in every movement. I remember Earth First 30 years ago, driving metal stakes into trees in the name of defending forests from deforestation, and causing a whole generation of foresters to become actively anti-environment. It simply sets the entire movement back through dividing and conquering, and that is, in my opinion, what XR’s tactics are doing right now.
Big Oil execs could not be happier with this sort of thing.
Did some digging — there’s no evidence Mr. Hallam got a degree at King’s, as he claims.
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/
Is it possible XR gets funding from the oil industry and is doing the work of that industry to confuse the public in an election year? We’ve seen it before — definitely wouldn’t be the first time. It’s a tried and true tactic.”
Him: “There’s 6,863 student theses available on that website. I’d wager that the total number of graduates from King’s College is greater than that.”
Me: “But you can search that site, and nothing comes up for his name — given there is literally nothing else about his professional career out there, my guess is that it’s all a lie. You don’t go from houseless to a PhD — there’s a process to get higher ed, and of course faking that basically makes a mockery of everyone who does the actual work. And more — it’s dangerous when people follow it blindly. That’s how cults are made.
There are so many very well established, transparently educated, scientifically sound leaders out there. Mark Jacobson, Bill McKibben…why not follow their teachings rather than some shady character no one’s ever heard of?”
Him: “Those folks you mention do good work, but I don’t think they do a good enough job of expressing the danger of inaction. No one voice is the only one that matters. These positions all come together to save us from extinction! And I really don’t care about the individual person it’s coming.”
Me: “You think Bill McKibben doesn’t do a good enough job of expressing the danger of inaction on climate? He’s been talking about it to anyone who will listen for decades…haha, what on earth more could he do?
So you don’t know who pays for XR — hm. I would bet good money there’s fossil money there. XR are powerful allies to them at this point, since you’re helping divide and conquer the pro-climate community, and that’s a powerful weapon they couldn’t get through traditional means (like advertising, where their conflict of interest would be a bit more obvious).
Yes, our advertisers benefit from advancements in clean energy and the clean energy economy — it’s a virtuous cycle! They pay us, we promote good things, more good things happen, they create good paying and earth-friendly jobs, those people vote for better candidates, and before you know it, the world is in good shape. Perfect, no. Good and livable, yes, and once the tipping point is achieved and fossil fuel corruption becomes blatant and ineffective, then we get to a society where every community makes their own clean power and grows their own clean food, everyone has enough, and world peace is actually possible. It’s a vision I can live with. it’s an honest living and an honorable career. I could make a lot more money shilling garbage like cigarettes, payday loans, or fossil fuels and doing their dirty work for them, but I sleep better at night this way, and I guess that’s something.”
At this stage, I peaced out to get back to work.
So…am I a pompous ass? Is XR a fake org purporting to do good but secretly funded by oil & gas?
Text has been slightly edited for length, to remove personally identifying information and to clarify information that was otherwise a little difficult to decipher.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
CleanTechnica's Comment Policy
